State v. Rahman

I

Celebrezze, C.J.

Appellant first contends that, pursuant to R.C. 2945.42,1 his wife was not competent to testify against him at trial. Appellant further argues that allowing his wife to testify concerning privileged marital communications was substantial, prejudicial error in contravention of R.C. 2945.42. Although we reject the first of these contentions, we find merit in the second.

The Rules of Evidence which now govern court proceedings have *148superseded many of the prior statutes which were procedural in nature. Spousal competency is distinguished from spousal privilege, and each issue is…